Election Observation in Nigeria: Prop or Threat to Democratic Consolidation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early years of Nigeria, its democratic structures suffered a great setback as the military intervened in its political life partly on account of the rigging, acrimony and bloodletting that attended the 1964 general elections and the 1965 western regional elections. Since then and through all other subsequent elections, there have been accusations and counter accusations by the contending political parties of rigging or manipulation of the electoral process .Hence the adoption of the practice of election observation or monitoring in the 1990’s with a view to strengthening the country’s democracy. Since the practice crept into the country’s political landscape, the study discovered that, it has to some extent, further propped the country’s democracy as some voters now have confidence more than ever before, to participate in the country’s elections believing that their votes will count. However of recent, there is this allegation that some of the observers do compromise the process of observation as they tend to write biased report favoring the political parties they have sympathy for. Thus the suspicion that election observation might be a threat to the democracy it is supposed to protect. The study investigated this suspicion and discovered through both primary and secondary data that, although there might be few cases of comprise particularly by local observers, however, the cumulative effect of these is not enough yet to constitute a threat to democratic consolidation in the country. Despite this, the paper proceeded to recommend the panacea to ameliorate the grey areas in election observation in the country in order to make it a much stronger exercise and thereby exuding further salutary effect on the country’s search for an enduring democratic temper and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".